Revenue per team 1. Premiership (average ~$130 mil per team) 2. Series A (average ~$90 mil per team) 3. Bundesliga (average ~$89 mil per team) 4. La Liga (average ~$70 mil per team) 5. Ligue 1 (average ~$50 mil per team) 6. Mexican Football League (average ~$35 mil per team) 7. J-league (average ~$28.33 mil per team) 8. Eredivisie (average ~$25.9 mil per team) 9. Championship (average ~$25.5 mil per team) 10. Brazilian league (average ~$24.6 mil per team) xx. Series B: (average ~$15.6 mil per team) xx. MLS (average ~$12 mil per team) Argentina First Division, Portugal First Division and probably Bundesliga 2 are the other three. SOURCES: http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/press_release/0,1014,sid%3D2834%26cid%3D120056,00.html http://www.linternaute.com/sport/dossier/football/07/business-foot-francais/7.shtml MLS top revenue earners: ------------------------------------- By continents: Europe 1. Premiership (average ~$160 mil per team) 2. Series A (average ~$90 mil per team) 3. Bundesliga (average ~$89 mil per team) 4. La Liga (average ~$70 mil per team) 5. Ligue 1 (average ~$50 mil per team) 6. Eredivisie (average ~$25.9 mil per team) 7. Championship (average ~$25.5 mil per team) x. Series B: (average ~$15.6 mil per team) Asia 1. J-league (average ~$28.33 mil per team) 2. Australia's A-league 3. Korea's K-league Americas 1. Mexican Football League (average ~$35 mil per team) 2. Brazilian league (average ~$24.6 mil per team) 3. Argentina First Division 4. MLS (average ~$12 mil per team)
There should probably be more european leagues in a top 15 ranking of revenue. What about the Scotish league with Celtic and Rangers who each have about $100 million in revenue in a 12 club league. The danish league with FCK (around $100mill) and Brøndby. The Norwegian league with an average of about $17 mill in 2007. The Belgian league with Anderlect and Brugge. The portuguese league with Benfica, Porto and Sporting. The Turkish league, the Suiss and on and on. All of these leagues are certainly way above the Korean or Australian A league in revenue.
Whatever it is for the Scottish Premier League, it is lower than the Championship (which is stated as the sixth biggest league in Europe by Deloitte(though the Dutch league is ahead from another source.) My guess is something like this: Scottish Premier League: Celtic: ~$100 mil Rangers: ~$80 mil the other 10 clubs (on average) ~$8 mil Total: $260 mil Average: $21.7 mil I don't think the Turkish league is generating a lot of revenue beside the top 2-3 clubs. Same with Portugese.
Hmm no, if i recall correctly our TV revenue is very poor, and not to say WAY unfair. The total revenue per year is about $150 mil per year which is like 7.5 mil per club, when i see this i feel like crying because in reality of those 150 mil both River and Boca share 80 mil and the other 18 clubs share the rest(also unequally but still). Until 2006 those were the numbers of TV revenue, i don't if it increased or if it's still the same.
I wonder if MLS would have cracked the top 10 if the US dollar had tanked so bad over the last 5 years. Said another way, using the exchange rate of, say, 2000, I wonder what there ranking would have been.
9. Championship (average ~$25.5 mil per team) xx. MLS (average ~$12 mil per team) Just to show you why Preston North End, a team at the bottom of the Championship, can afford to bid $2.5 mil for Taylor Twellman. They can probably offer him a salary of $900,000 a year. His MLS salary is $300,000 a year.
Keep in mind on the MLS revenue numbers that you really need to construct a consolidated income statement. Since the player salaries are paid at the league level, that income is also retained at the league level which is different from most teams in the world. You should really add back in the income from TV and the gate revenues, at least in an amount roughly equal to the salaries the league pays on the teams behalf -- if MLS wasn't a single entity structure, that revenue would be passed down to the teams.
I am having trouble following what you are saying here. The salaries are an expense, not a revenue (income?) item. Whether they are expensed to the team, the league, or on a consolidated basis, they are always an expense. So what do you mean when you say "that income is ... reatined at the league level." Its late and maybe I am just a little slow tonight.
My reply was a bit murky. Because MLS pays the salaries, it keeps revenue to do that which would otherwise belong to the teams -- particularly the TV revenues and shared gate revenues. Now, virtually everywhere else in the world, teams pay the players and get a share of those revenues to help them do it. Of course you are correct that to get a comparable financial picture of an MLS team, you should add back in the salaries as an expense, and a share of TV and gate revenues now retained by the league as income. The amount of the salaries is pretty clear, but how much revenue you would add back to an MLS team to make its gross revenue figure comparable with teams in other leagues is debatable, as revenue sharing formulas do differ around the world (with some teams selling TV rights collectively with different formulas to divide it, while others sell their own rights and retain all of the TV revenues). As a quick and dirty measurement though, I would suggest that you add back TV and gate revenue at least equal to the expense of the salaries. (I did the math in another thread, but as I recall if you gave back an equal share of the national TV money and shared gate revenue based on average paid attendance from 2005, it would be about $2.4 million per team -- just over next years reported cap number, so it happens to be pretty close.) All that said, I believe that the measurements noted in this thread are only gross revenues -- turnover -- so we are really only worried about how much income to add back to the teams that is now retained by MLS. The short answer is if you just add about $2.3 to 2.4 million to each MLS team's revenue quoted above, I think it gives you "apples to apples" with other clubs and leagues.
I originally posted that from numbers in the CSL Kansas City Johnson County feasibility study. The table comes straight from the report, but I added the text in brackets for how the numbers were calculated based on the write up. For those interested in the economics of MLS, the CSL study remains a very interesting read. You can download it here: http://www.sportkc.org/news/soccercomplex06background.htm
Revenue per team 1. Premiership (average ~$130 mil per team) 2. Series A (average ~$90 mil per team) 3. Bundesliga (average ~$89 mil per team) 4. La Liga (average ~$70 mil per team) 5. Ligue 1 (average ~$50 mil per team) 6. Mexican Football League (average ~$35 mil per team) 7. J-league (average ~$28.33 mil per team) 8. Eredivisie (average ~$25.9 mil per team) 9. Championship (average ~$25.5 mil per team) 10. Brazilian league (average ~$21.3 mil per team) 11. Argentina First Division: (average ~$19.25 mil per team) xx. Series B: (average ~$15.6 mil per team) xx. MLS (average ~$12 mil per team) xx. Bundesliga 2: ??? xx. Portugese First Division: ???? xx. Scottish Premier League: ???? Maybe MLS isn't among the top 15. https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?p=13721655#post13721655 Average revenue per club for South American Leagues BRAZIL: Let's assume $171 mil in TV revenue (for 20 clubs) Let's assume $45 mil in ticket revenue (for 20 clubs) Let's assume $50 mil in sponsorship (for 20 clubs) Let's assume $20 mil in merchandise (for 20 clubs) Let's assume $140 mil in net transfer revenue (for 20 clubs) Total: $426 mil for 20 clubs Average: $21.3 mil per club for Brazil. ARGENTINA Ticket revenue: $75 mil (all 20 clubs) TV revenue: $150 mil (all 20 clubs) Sponsorship: $50 mil (all 20 clubs) Merchandise: $20 mil (all 20 clubs) Net transfer revenue: $90 mil (all 20 clubs) Total: $385 mil Average: $19.25 mil for Argentina
Argentina's new TV deal is 150 million Pesos, thats about US$48m over 20 teams, so about us$2.4m each . . However, Boca and River pick up 20.85m pesos each or us$6.7m per season. Independiente, San Lorenzo and Racing Club pick up 11.75 million pesos each or us$3.8m each. The remaining 15 clubs share about 73 million pesos or us$23 between them, or us$1.5m each
No it's 475 million pesos, which is around 150 million dollars. Although Boca and River hogging most of it is right, they both take 80 mil from it. Independiente takes 8mil(slightly above the average which would be 7.5), San Lorenzo gets 6mil, Racing 5mil, Vélez and Arsenal each one 3mil and the rest behind.
It doesn't matter. All of those figures are in the US dollar. They could all be measured in baskets of wheat and the rankings would be the same. But it's no surprise that even a marginal league in the US has does as well financially as top leagues other places in the world. Pretty much any given business does better in the US than anywhere else, so one that the US doesn't care much about will still do pretty well by comparison. Not trying to brag up the US or anything, but that's just kind of the way the world works.
The MLS is a financial disaster. An absolute, total, complete and utter disaster. Millions of dollars have been lost on this league. Millions. The Hunt family alone has just taken one long 10 year almight s***-kicking in the wallet. Everyone in this league not named David Beckham is hurting. EVERYONE. Some people will say well what about Landon Donovan, well ya, hes' got his million a year but he could have gotten 1.75 million in Europe and cleaned up on the fluctuation of the Euro vs the USD. Nobody but nobody, player owner or random guy is making more money by being in this league, they are making something but not what they could earn elsewhere. NOBODY. MLS is just an absolute financial catastrophe on every imaginable level. You want a small fortune? No problem, start with a large fortune and buy an MLS team. If someone was to right a book on the state of the MLS finances it would have two chapters. Chapter 7 and Chapter 11.
That's a bit dramatic. Most teams are expected to show a profit for the first time this season. The found investors sold off the teams for enough to recoup a lot of their losses (if i remember correctly), and the investors who bought the teams are more long term players. Using my team as an example, if the Rapids do show a profit from this year on (which they are expected to) KSE (their owner) will be up a lot in 10 years.
Isn't this all a bit flawed, what with the emphasis the MLS puts on overall league-wide maximisation of profits in comparison to other world leagues? The Championship would be even further ahead if we decided that we'd move Colchester and Scunthorpe to Nottingham and Leeds.
Andres - it is PESOS not dollars . . I got this from an Argentine Newspaper. Los clubes pasarán a cobrar la suba recién a partir de septiembre en doce cuotas iguales y consecutivas. Hasta hoy, entre todos se repartían 93.500.000 pesos, que en los casos de Boca y River –los mejores pagos– representaban 12.500.000 pesos para cada uno. Con el aumento del 65 por ciento, que significan 8.125.000 pesos para cada tesorería, los dos grandes del fútbol argentino embolsarán alrededor de 20.625.000 pesos. Los que se ubican en el segundo escalón, Independiente, Racing, San Lorenzo y Vélez, recibían 7.000.000 y de ahora en adelante se aproximarán a los 11.550.000 pesos. Los del tercer grupo, que son la mayoría (Estudiantes, Gimnasia (LP), Newell’s, Central, Lanús, Banfield, Colón, Argentinos, Arsenal y Gimnasia (J)) se irán de los 3.000.000 a los 4.950.000 de pesos y en el cuarto peldaño de la distribución quedarán los recién ascendidos (Huracán, Olimpo, Tigre y San Martín de San Juan), con 4.125.000 pesos.